[oe] [meta-oe][PATCH] qt-creator: avoid conflicts with meta-qt5's qt5-creator

[Andreas Müller]

On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 7:01 PM, Martin Jansa <martin.jansa at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 01, 2015 at 11:23:44PM +0100, Andreas Müller wrote:
>> We avoid conflicts by installing no files to sysroot. This causes no fallout
>> because nothing depends on qt5-creator (if something included later depending
>> on qt-creator it should depend on qt5-creator).
>> Note that
>>
>> | WARNING: QA Issue: qt5-creator rdepends on qt-creator, but it isn't a build dependency? [build-deps]
>>
>> is a false positve because the names of the libraries are same as for
>> qt5-creator (see test below).
>
> This isn't enough to resolve the warning (but it resolves the sysroot
> conflict which is good).
>
> qt-creator is still recorded as runtime provider for couple of
> libraries, we can list them all in PRIVATE_LIBS (if we can assume that
> nothing will link against them - which is already assumed by not staging
> them).
>
> Here is the list from qt5-creator log.do_package:
>
> $ grep "requires package qt-creator" log.do_package
> DEBUG: qt5-creator: Dependency libCore.so requires package qt-creator (used by files: /home/jenkins/oe/world/shr-core/tmp-glibc/work/armv5e-oe-linux-gnueabi/qt5-creator/3.3.1-r0/packages-split/qt5-creator/usr/lib/qt5/qtcreator/plugins/libQmlJSTools.so)
Very interesting:

* qt5-creator complains for libs it has installed itself (see qt5 in path)
* how should someone link against libraries that are not in sysroot?
* during my tests for sysroot patch I have build qt-creator from
scratch and then an image with qt5-creator included. If this warning
would be true the image creation would have failed because qt5-creator
RCONFLICTS qt-creator (error occured when starting the last patch)

Problem seems that that the instance creating (have not looked
further) these warnings just checks the name of the library without
path. Library names are same for both versions of qt-creator.

We could try it with PRIVATE_LIBS but I'd suggest to simply ignore
these false warnings.

What do you think?

Andreas